[arch-general] Bad attitude in flyspray again!

[Heiko Baums]

Am Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:19:46 +0200 (GTB Standard Time)
schrieb Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis at gmx.net>:

> My primary complaint against flyspray is that it doesn't allow
> comments to be added after the bug is closed. The only way is by
> doing a request to reopen the bug, and even in that case your comment
> is not added to the comment list.
> 
> Wouldn't this functionality remedy the "closing bugs early"
> situation? Is it supported in flyspray?

This functionality would be much better. The comment for reopening is
not sufficient. Usually on other bug trackers, there's a function
"reopen" which reopens the bug at once and you can add a normal comment.

In the way it is handled by flyspray now it is more like begging:
"Please developer, be so kind and look again at it."

In cases like my last one this can lead to misunderstandings and the
like.

Still better would be, if bugs would not be closed at once. If
something works for the developer, which can be, then the developer can
write a comment and ask for more details. If it turns out, that this is
indeed not a bug then the bug can still be closed. Such invalid bugs
can surely be annoying but can't be inhibited. I, too, filed a few
invalid bug reports in the past, because I missed an option
somewhere. Nobody is omniscient.

In my case it turned out that the developer hasn't read my bug report
precisely enough and I didn't read the comment of the denial of
reopening so that I missed, that it was denied by another developer to
which the bug wasn't assigned. And such a closure of a bug hasn't
happened the first time for me. This was the reason why I was quite
angry. And I don't like such an unfriendly conversation.

One can talk about almost everything.

It would be better, if the developers would wait for an answer of the
reporter until they decide to close a bug. It's much friendlier,
doesn't seem to be arrogant or ignorant and wouldn't make much more
work. And the decision of an reopening request should probably be made
by the developer to whom the bug is assigned.

Greetings,
Heiko